The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B3D[edit]

Delete per WP:JNN and WP:WEB. It's just not notable. Lack of sources and google hits confirm this. Undeath (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Original research? and per nom Thin boy 00 @185, i.e. 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nomination uses (and links-to) arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. So it, and the "per noms" must be thrown out, leaving this afd with no valid participation. I will relist it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article sounds like original research, COI, or just something they made up. Any way, it still is not notable. Soxred93 | talk count bot 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I stick to my decision to delete, not because of my first reasoning, but for the same reason as Helenalex. Soxred93 | talk count bot 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Fails WP:V. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article contents changed drastically during this AfD, even the above newer comments seem to be discussiing the old article. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem notable. Might be if it was widely used or had been used to create something popular and/or significant, but there's no evidence of this. --Helenalex (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after work done by Jerry this article now seems to be encyclopedic. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Blitz Research - there seems to be a family of stubs developing, where one good article might do a better job. dramatic (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.